Donald Rumsfeld, at it again....

[zakur]

Indeed. But Rumsfeld never did confuse the two. In fact, he never made the claim that ANYONE was being disloyal to the US in that speech. Which is why people keep posting what OTHER people (starting with the AP, and now Olbermann) said about what Rumsfeld said, instead of actually quoting the man himself. Even though I posted a link to his transcript near the top of this thread. Why is that? Hmmm....

Rumsfeld:

And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?

[...]

Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our country. America is not what's wrong with the world.

The struggle we are in -- the consequences are too severe -- the struggle too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of “Blame America First.”

Sure, he didn't use the actual word 'disloyal,' but are you trying to convince us that's not what he meant by the above? Hmmmm...

And regarding the 'critics of the Iraq War are like Nazi appeasers' metaphor, Again, he didn't use that exact phrase, but here is how he framed it:

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

The comparison is clear. Why can you not see that? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[BPSCG]

Rumsfeld:

Sure, he didn't use the actual word 'disloyal,' but are you trying to convince us that's not what he meant by the above? Hmmmm...

And regarding the 'critics of the Iraq War are like Nazi appeasers' metaphor, Again, he didn't use that exact phrase, but here is how he framed it:

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

The comparison is clear. Why can you not see that? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

This is wonderful because you (I'm sure unintentionally) prove exactly the point some of us have been making.

Look at the portion of Rumsfeld's speech you quote above. Do you see the word Iraq in there anywhere? Do you see Iraq mentioned by reference in there? Do you see Iraq referred to even obliquely in there?

No, no, and no.

What you see is references to Islamist terrorist attacks all over the world, everywhere except Iraq. "New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow..."

And yet, you persist in repeating the mantra that he's claiming "the critics of the Iraq War are like Nazi appeasers."

Again, read the speech he gave, not the MSM's spin on it. Attack the argument he actually made, not the one you wish he had.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Right on man.

/raises fist in the air

Damn Bu$Hitler and his Theo-Nazis.

The comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler were sloppy thinking. He was a lot more like Stalin in style and approach, for my money, as was his version of political power manipulation.

The continual juxtaposition of "Islamist" with "fascism" as "Islamofascism" is an appeal to the archetype of the WW II era fascisti, who began in Italy but didn't accrue legendary status until the Germans got on board with their superior efficiency and industry.

The continuing soundbytes by officials and (non official shills) that associate a given enemy, like Iran's president, with Hitler is the worst sort of Godwin vacuousness.

Is there no one else to compare bad people to in the intellectual desert that is Washington, and among the shills in the media who support a particular political bloc? Without old Adolf, what would they do?

I am likewise disdainful of the fools who compare President Bush to Hitler. ( note your post's sarcasm. ) More intellectual incompetence. For one thing, Adolf Hitler earned not one but two combat decorations, the Iron Cross Second and First Class, and the wound medal (like our Purple Heart) on the Western Front of WW I. He served as a courier/messenger, when a lot of command-to-subordinate-unit communication (see the movie Gallipoli for a contemporary depiction) went by foot.
From a summary of some Hitler History
World War I
--August 3, 1914 petitioned King Ludwig III of Bavaria for permission to join in a Bavarian regiment (granted)
--December 1914 awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class
--October 7, 1916 wounded in combat (grenade splinter in leg)
--August 4, 1918 awarded the Iron Cross, First Class
--October 13, 1918 temporary blindness caused by gas attack
--While at the hospital recuperating his eyes, he heard the news about the end of the First World War.

I always found it ironic that he "dodged the draft" in the Austrian Army, but volunteered as a soldier in the Bavarian Army. (16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment)

One of the few things Pres Bush and Adolf Hitler have in common is that they were attached to Reserve units: Hitler in a hot war, Bush in a Cold War, and they both avoided service in "regular" armies.

DR

 

[zakur]

This is wonderful because you (I'm sure unintentionally) prove exactly the point some of us have been making.

Look at the portion of Rumsfeld's speech you quote above. Do you see the word Iraq in there anywhere? Do you see Iraq mentioned by reference in there? Do you see Iraq referred to even obliquely in there?

No, no, and no.

What you see is references to Islamist terrorist attacks all over the world, everywhere except Iraq. "New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow..."

And yet, you persist in repeating the mantra that he's claiming "the critics of the Iraq War are like Nazi appeasers."

Again, read the speech he gave, not the MSM's spin on it. Attack the argument he actually made, not the one you wish he had.

He uses the word 'Iraq' six times in this speech. He even refers to Iraq as the “epicenter” in the War on Terror. For the Bush admin and their supporters Iraq War = WOT. The conflation is obvious and not in the least bit accidental.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Now I'm even more confused.

The U.S. military campaign in Iraq has been better than textbook. The invasion lasted but a dozen days, with very, very few U.S. casulties.

Even the occupation has come with very few casulties, when compared to occupations in the past.

....Very few casualties my left buttock.
We are now 3 years into the occupation that there was not supposed to be much of - according to Rumsfeld. Which means that there are relatively far more casualties than the number Rumsfeld sold the public and the congress on.

Vietnam, which was primarily an occupation of the South during a civil war with the North (just two periods listed, for reference):

Casualties By Year
1961-1965
Force KIA WIA MIA CIA
US Forces 1,864 7,337 18 unknown

ARVN unknown unknown unknown unknown

NVA/VC unknown unknown unknown unknown



1968
Force KIA WIA MIA CIA
US Forces 14,594 1 87,388 176 unknown

ARVN 28,800 172,512 587 unknown

NVA/VC 208,254 unknown unknown 9,462

Note 1: there were an additional 1,919 non-hostile deaths for a total of 16,511

Note that the first 4 years in Vietnam incurred a similar number of casulties as the first few years of Iraqi occupation (but there was no opposed U.S. invasion).

The U.S. tactic was quite similar in Vietnam during those years, too: advise and assist native forces, primarily from U.S. military compounds.

Then, by 1968, when U.S. forces had increased in number and engagement intensity, casulties rose to over 16,000 in that single year.

We often hear the "no more Vietnams", yet we are repeating history.

The ultimate battlefield is in the United States (the White House, Congress, the universities, the media pressrooms, the TV anchor chairs, etc.), the real weapons are words, and the real enemy is ideology.

And the results will be similar, too.

 

[zakur]

Let's add a little of Cheney's recent rhetoric to this discussion:

I realize, as well, that some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.

Whoa! Who claims this? Fullofit McStrawmanton? Wimpy Appeaserman? I'd really appreciate some cite to back up this assertion. But let's continue anyway:

Time and again over the last generation, the terrorists have targeted nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists, once again, that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail. They would simply draw up another set of demands, and instruct Americans to act as they direct or to face other murders. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States.

Oh, looky there. Iraq War = WoT, Leaving Iraq = Appeasing Terrorists, Criticising Iraq War = Hate America.

Allusion, implication, rhetorical ********. The same dog and pony show over and over again from the Bush administration.

 

[Darth Rotor]

We often hear the "no more Vietnams", yet we are repeating history. The ultimate battlefield is in the United States (the White House, Congress, the universities, the media pressrooms, the TV anchor chairs, etc.), the real weapons are words, and the real enemy is ideology.

And the results will be similar, too.

Thanks for the numbers. Who, do you think, are the analogous USSR and China who supply and support the Viet Minh, NVA, and Viet Cong. Iran supplies and supports some of the Shia factions in Iraq, but not all. So, there's your China.

I find the burning desire to compare Iraq to Viet Nam disappointing. Iraq is very much its own animal, but I think its comparison to Viet Nam is a mental trap.

I agree with your point that the critical comparison to Viet Nam is in Washington, and in the 24/7 media war, not in the field, though the one year rotation model (which disrupts key relationships with local leadership) is a spooky parallel that has profound implication for "passing the torch."

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Let's add a little of Cheney's recent rhetoric to this discussion:Whoa! Who claims this? Fullofit McStrawmanton? Wimpy Appeaserman? I'd really appreciate some cite to back up this assertion. But let's continue anyway:Oh, looky there. Iraq War = WoT, Leaving Iraq = Appeasing Terrorists, Criticising Iraq War = Hate America.

Allusion, implication, rhetorical ********. The same dog and pony show over and over again from the Bush administration.

Of course, the decision not to go to Iraq deprives the Terrorists of that battlefield, and channels them elsewhere. I know, no crying over spilled milk.

The terrorist threat tied to Iraq was clearly identified as one focused on Israel. I don't doubt Saddam gave some under the table support to any number of folks who could give America a black eye, and he was certainly hosting Ansar al Islam. The WoT meme won't ever go away. As you point out, the conflation is embedded in the administration's policy. It is almost like Iraq = Dien Bien Phu or Khe Sanh, but on a macro scale: set up an outpost, or a fire base, and invite the enemy to attack. Hit them with air power when they break cover. Khe sanh sorta worked, within temporal limits, Dien Bien Phu didn't.

DR

 

[Huntster]

Let's add a little of Cheney's recent rhetoric to this discussion:
Quote:
I realize, as well, that some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.

Whoa! Who claims this? Fullofit McStrawmanton? Wimpy Appeaserman? I'd really appreciate some cite to back up this assertion.

Whether or not advocates of withdrawal support their demands with the claim that "retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone", there are people who want withdrawal.

All strawmen aside, do you deny that?

Do you support that action?

If not, what is your suggestion?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Whether or not advocates of withdrawal support their demands with the claim that "retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone", there are people who want withdrawal.

All strawmen aside, do you deny that?

Do you support that action?

If not, what is your suggestion?

The core problem is that Phase V, force withdrawal and return to CONUS, is predicated on certain conditions on the ground being met. That is how campaign plans/war plans are written these days. Whatever those conditions are, and we are in Phase IV at the moment, they apparently have not been met. They are not likely to be met until sometime in 2007, based on what is being bandied about publicly regarding the phased turnover of responsibilities to Iraqi forces.

DR

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

'
The very fact that Rumsfeld is still trying to tie critics of this war to ANYTHING 'un-American', is still offensive, regardless.

Why? Because he expresses the opinion that appeasement and those who support it are stupid gits who should be ridiculed for their bankrupt stance? What on earth is wrong with that? If you ain't into appeasement why on earth would *YOU* find it offensive? If you are in favor of appeasement then stop trying to obfuscate and come out and explain your position.

And, by the way, 'mouthy' people are the ones who brought this whole fiasco to light in the first place. Do you mean to say, that we should just sit back, let them do what they will, and suck it up, compliant and non-complaining?

"Mouthy people" didn't bring anything to light. Mouthy people sure seem to have spent a lot of time complaining about everything that gets done including things like invading Afghanistan, detaining terrorists and trying to track down their money.

I have seen the "mouthy" ones make their way to Baghdad to be a "human shield" only to see them disappear from the scene rather than be a human shield against car bombers and suicide bombers.

I have seen these "mouthy" ones scream obscenities about Bush and never scream them about the terrorists' leaders.

But I have never seen them "bring anything to light"

Do you favour being mislead and lied to, by the very people who we've entrusted with our safety and well-being?

Why do you not cite your misinterpretation of what someone else managed to misinterpret and tell us what the lies are? Or is this going to turn into yet another example of your inability to actually read or listen to what was said?

Are you in favour of this abomination that's taking place in Iraq, with 3000 Americans and countless others (Allied troops and Iraqis) dead, and no real known reason as to why it's going on? Every time a reason comes up, it's always somewhat different: WMDs, terrorist cells, Saddam was threatening his neighbours, threatening the U.S., etc. Do you know the real and true reason(s) as to why it's happening? Because I sure don't.

Obviously you don't, but there again you have shown that you cannot actually understand plain things when they are said and instead seem to rely on the interpretations of others. So it really would not matter if someone gave you a cast iron "case" as soon as someone else told you something different you would be off waffling again.

I'm tired of being looked at as un-Patriotic, un-American, un-co-operative, and un- anything else, simply because I'm sick and tired of seeing stories of soldiers dying on the news every night, involved in a war that was started by a bunch of rich, white frat boys who've never been involved in actual combat before in their lives, and acting like they've all the angles and answers to this situation.

well stop being an obfuscating unpatriotic little twit then and you won't feel that way. it's pretty simple - instead of just regurgitating the latest round of propaganda that you have swallowed why not actually try and get to the facts of what was said and who said it. Try being honest for a while both with yourself and with both sides of the debate. It will probably be tough but you may actually get some progress.

For example see this "white frat boys" - pathetic little vignette because you actually don't have anything concrete to say. Wow what a stinger eh? There's some real "mouthy" patriotic stuff to be going on with.

And, before you ask, NO, I don't have any answers to this at all.

wow. I don't think anyone really has *the* answers - just their best efforts.

Instead of whining why don't you lay out your prorgam for keeping US citizens safe? Perhaps we should be sending vast amounts of money to open madrasses and support the Wahhabis so they will leave us alone?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
We often hear the "no more Vietnams", yet we are repeating history. The ultimate battlefield is in the United States (the White House, Congress, the universities, the media pressrooms, the TV anchor chairs, etc.), the real weapons are words, and the real enemy is ideology.

And the results will be similar, too.

Thanks for the numbers. Who, do you think, are the analogous USSR and China who supply and support the Viet Minh, NVA, and Viet Cong. Iran supplies and supports some of the Shia factions in Iraq, but not all. So, there's your China.

Thanks for that thoughtful reply.

Actually, in terms of logistical support, yes, Iran is the likely primary source. Throw in Syria.

But the ideological foundation (the Russian/Chinese communism of North Vietnam) in Iraq is clearly coming from radical Islamic imams. I don't think this can be isolated by political boundries. It's clearly regional, or cultural.

And the ideological/political resistance to whatever Washington DC does comes from the minority party/ideology in this country.

Being a "two party" system, and primarily a "conservative/liberal" ideological culture, I fail to see any other options.

I find the burning desire to compare Iraq to Viet Nam disappointing. Iraq is very much its own animal, but I think its comparison to Viet Nam is a mental trap.

I don't think so. While there are obvious differences (especially tactical), the political/ideological similarities, and their effect on military strategy, are too similar for me to ignore.

I agree with your point that the critical comparison to Viet Nam is in Washington, and in the 24/7 media war, not in the field, though the one year rotation model (which disrupts key relationships with local leadership) is a spooky parallel that has profound implication for "passing the torch."

Another big thing to watch for is the difference in today's all volunteer military vrs. the draft situation of the Vietnam era. One of the major political/ideological pressures at the homefront during the Vietnam era were the young people attending universities with the draft deferrment carrot, then demonstrating politically as a culture itself. Further, those who didn't/couldn't avoid the draft in the universities and who found themselves in Southeast Asia, who were the majority of ground troops, and with all the dissent and political/ideological struggles going on at home, had an effect on the overall moral and effectiveness in theater.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Whether or not advocates of withdrawal support their demands with the claim that "retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone", there are people who want withdrawal.

All strawmen aside, do you deny that?

Do you support that action?

If not, what is your suggestion?

The core problem is that Phase V, force withdrawal and return to CONUS, is predicated on certain conditions on the ground being met. That is how campaign plans/war plans are written these days. Whatever those conditions are, and we are in Phase IV at the moment, they apparently have not been met. They are not likely to be met until sometime in 2007, based on what is being bandied about publicly regarding the phased turnover of responsibilities to Iraqi forces....

I agree completely.

That's why I support the President's "stay the course" theme. I find no reason to cut and run yet, and many reasons to give Iraq a chance to form a new government.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I agree completely.

That's why I support the President's "stay the course" theme. I find no reason to cut and run yet, and many reasons to give Iraq a chance to form a new government.

I hate the "cut and run" soundbyte. It is a narrow characterization aimed at belittling the anti-war side, and the loyal opposition, by tarring it with the same brush of cowardice. The political challenge of the administration is to get, by hard political work, the patience required to sustain support for the new Iraqi government. What seems to be happening all too often is cheap personal attacks, though I am glad Congressman Murtha is being sued for his irresponsible comments.

Any government in Iraq will only work within an Iraqi context. It must be based on agreed societal norms in Iraq, not ours, or it won't last beyond our presence.

Do you consider Tom Lehrer's facetious lyrics a viable policy?

"They've got to be protected
All their rights respected
Til somebody we like
Can be elected!"

Note: UN sponsored elections in Haiti, 1990's, did that basket case little good. Elections among the Palestinians resulted in Hamas taking political prominence. Is that good? Don't know, and I don't know if Hamas will ever change their act. The recent elections in Mexico don't seem to have made much of anyone very happy, but because they are already in a relatively cohesive society, civil war hasn't broken out. Yet.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow! Those would have been good questions to ask three and a half years ago.

I did ask them. And I was satisfied with the answers that I arrived at. You can argue that I was wrong, but you can't argue that I didn't think about them, or argue about them at the time. But no evidence of any such thought is taking place among those asking why we don't invade Saudi Arabia. It's not a serious question (that's why they don't actually ADVOCATE it), it's just a cheap rhetorical bludgeon.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I agree completely.

That's why I support the President's "stay the course" theme. I find no reason to cut and run yet, and many reasons to give Iraq a chance to form a new government.

I hate the "cut and run" soundbyte. It is a narrow characterization aimed at belittling the anti-war side, and the loyal opposition, by tarring it with the same brush of cowardice.

Okay. Would you prefer "Withdrawal with Honor"?

The political challenge of the administration is to get, by hard political work, the patience required to sustain support for the new Iraqi government. What seems to be happening all too often is cheap personal attacks, though I am glad Congressman Murtha is being sued for his irresponsible comments.

Any government in Iraq will only work within an Iraqi context. It must be based on agreed societal norms in Iraq, not ours, or it won't last beyond our presence.

I agree.

Do you consider Tom Lehrer's facetious lyrics a viable policy?

"They've got to be protected
All their rights respected
Til somebody we like
Can be elected!"

Nope.

Yet, would you think a U.S. invasion, and the deposing (with or without capture) of Saddam, then immediate withdrawal a sound policy?

I don't, but I'd certainly accept it. It beats enduring the political/ideological fracturing we seem to love to do to ourselves under these circumstances.

Note: UN sponsored elections in Haiti, 1990's, did that basket case little good. Elections among the Palestinians resulted in Hamas taking political prominence. Is that good? Don't know, and I don't know if Hamas will ever change their act. The recent elections in Mexico don't seem to have made much of anyone very happy, but because they are already in a relatively cohesive society, civil war hasn't broken out. Yet.

Excellent points. Especially regarding Mexico.

Haiti is and always will be a basket case. Hamas et al will always be there.

And I expect the next Mexican civil war any time now.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rumsfeld:

Sure, he didn't use the actual word 'disloyal,' but are you trying to convince us that's not what he meant by the above? Hmmmm...

Well, let me ask you: who do you think that quote applies to? Does it apply to you? No reason to think so. Is opposing the Iraq war equivalent to thinking that America is the source of the world's problems? Again, no reason to think so. So why on earth are you reading it that way?

And regarding the 'critics of the Iraq War are like Nazi appeasers' metaphor, Again, he didn't use that exact phrase, but here is how he framed it:

(snip)
We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

Again, he didn't use that exact phrase, but here is how he framed it:The comparison is clear. Why can you not see that? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Why can I not see it? Because it's not there, not in the part I cut for brevity and not even in the parts you didn't quote either. He's NOT TALKING about critics of the Iraq war. He's talking, rather explicitly, about people who think we can bargain with terrorists, that they can be appeased. And there are indeed such people. I've argued, face to face, with such people. But that position is not synonymous with opposition to the Iraq war at all. One can indeed be opposed to the Iraq war, but still take the position that terrorists cannot be appeased. It is not me that cannot see what's there, it's you who have conflated two separate positions to invent a position which Rumsfeld never expressed. But I'm glad that at least you tried going to the source, and not simply relying on the AP or Olbermann.

 

[Ziggurat]

hmmm. If you want to criticise what Rumsfeld Temporal Renegade ACTUALLY said, I suggest you actually quote him directly

I thought that would be fairly obvious, if you just read the post I responded to. But since apparently you did not understand what I meant, here's the quote of his I had in mind, which he addressed to me:
"Do you favour being mislead and lied to, by the very people who we've entrusted with our safety and well-being?"
The rhetorical intention of this question is quite obvious: if I do not share his outrage against Bush, the only logical reason is if I am indeed in favor of such things. Which would make me a rube, an idiot, a fool, whatever, and not simply wrong about an issue. Get the difference between contending that your opponent is mistaken and contending that they have some character flaw?

 

[fishbob]

Whether or not advocates of withdrawal support their demands with the claim that "retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone", there are people who want withdrawal.

All strawmen aside, do you deny that?

Without names, there are no asides for strawmen.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Okay. Would you prefer "Withdrawal with Honor"?

What I would prefer can't happen, since the time window for my preference has long since closed.

Yet, would you think a U.S. invasion, and the deposing (with or without capture) of Saddam, then immediate withdrawal a sound policy?

That appears to have been the original plan (Washington Level) operating under the assumptions of

1. successfully importing Chalabi, or some other person, as interim pres,
2. support never actualy provided by the international community (writ large) for reconstruction,
3. the joy of a liberated people energizing them to behave like good little wogs and rebuild their country without killing each other

in the end game.

When that set of assumptions broke, the plan for post hostilities broke. That is part of why we are where we are now. Here is another factor.

The silver beebee fired at Saddam was never even close, the decapitation strike didn't work. To get a sense of how hard those things are to pull off, it took two years to achieve a decapitation strike on Zarqawi with people in ◊◊◊◊◊◊. The decapitation strike on Osama hasn't worked to date either. As of this writing, DoD is still run by a Silver Bullet afficianado.

General Zinni's Op Plan called for just under 300,000 troops. Shinseki's rigorous staff estimate when he was Army Chief of Staff called for over 200,000, with considerable attention paid to the "post conflict" phases. He was trying to incorporate lessons learned in Bosnia, and elsewhere, and was basically fired/marginalized for telling the truth.

And I expect the next Mexican civil war any time now.

My preferred course of action in that case is to man the border, liberal application of Ma Deuce, to ensure the flood of refugees know they need to go back and fight for their land. The quota has been filled already, and we don't need Rwanda / Zaire replayed in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

DR